If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

When she made the decision to have sex..she made the decision to reproduce. She made a choice now its time to become responsible for your decisions and not MURDER babies...murder used for dramatic effect only.

Are you truly saying that every time you've had sex you made a decision to have a child? What about when your 15 year old daughter or son has sex? Is that a decision to have children? I think babies deserve a little more thought than goes into most decisions to have sex. I've had a little too much contact with what happens when babies are not a choice to try to make that the law of our land. We tried that. And I've also had a little too much contact with the results when women were forced to obtain abortions illegally.

I am a grandfather now. Happily, each of my children was a choice, and each of my grandchildren was a choice. However, my daughter's pregnancies almost killed her and she had to spend the last three months of her pregnancies in bed to protect herself and the babies. If she became pregnant again for whatever reason, it would be a difficult and dangerous decision to have the baby. If she proceeded, she could readily die. No government and certainly no holier than thou religious dogmatic has the right to tell her to take that risk. I will support her choice, no matter what it is and know that every option will be painful to everyone involved.

Are you truly saying that every time you've had sex you made a decision to have a child? What about when your 15 year old daughter or son has sex? Is that a decision to have children? I think babies deserve a little more thought than goes into most decisions to have sex. I've had a little too much contact with what happens when babies are not a choice to try to make that the law of our land. We tried that. And I've also had a little too much contact with the results when women were forced to obtain abortions illegally.

Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

It is clear on this we will never agree. Happily, at least for now, public opinion and the law favor continued access to legal abortions with limited government involvement.

speaking of government involvement. I have never really looked up the Roe v Wade case. (My mom was only 3 when it came up haah) Why was that a case that was able to be heard but the federal courts?

The Wikipedia write up is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade. By the way, the Court did recognize a legitimate interest of the State in protecting the potentiality of human life in a fetus but that was not the basis for any of the State laws prohibiting abortion then in effect.

Basically the Court made two findings that were critical:

First, there is nothing to suggest that it was ever the original intent of the Constitution to protect the unborn.

Second, the Court determined that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") requires that States not limit the rights of individuals without just cause. In the case of abortions, they determined that there was no cause presented that justified such an intrusion by the State into such a personal decision. This is generally referred to as the "right to privacy" but might be better called the right to liberty to use the language of the amendment.

In 1965 there had been an earlier decision of the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut challenging the right of the State to deny birth control. In that case, the SCOTUS overturned the state law based on the 9th Amendment to the Constitution ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). This reasoning was not part of the Roe v Wade decision.

Unless the parties involved are < 13 years old then yes you know what MAY happen if you choose to have sex. What you are saying is like someone robs a bank but doesn't think they are going to get caught, then gets caught but doesn't have to take responsibility for their actions.

Babies do deserve more of a thought but why have to take any reponsibility for any action now that we have pills or long sticks to take care of it for us. I for one don't think babies should be just disposed of because we don't want to take care of them

Also I'm not in the camp that thinks that there are no abortions for any reasons if its rape or the mother is dying than i say that yes that should be left up to the mother or family. Other than that she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies.

While I do not agree, I actually understand those who believe that abortions should be illegal in all circumstances because the fetus is a person. I also understand those who believe that abortions should be prohibited at a certain stage in pregnancy because the fetus is likely to have reached a stage in development that they believe crosses or may cross the threshold of being human (16 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks?). Finally, I understand those who would grant an exception where the mother's life is endangered.

What I do not understand are those who oppose abortion because the woman chose to have sex and therefore deserves to suffer the consequence. I also do not understand exceptions in cases of rape, incest, etc., where those exceptions are not based on threats to the life of mother or fetus. In my mind, if the fetus is human and deserves the protection of the law as a human being, then the circumstances under which the pregnancy occurred (rape, etc.) are irrelevant. When you argue, as you appear to do, that other than rape "she already made her choice by engaging in the action that causes babies" and should be required to have the baby, you are effectively saying that the baby is just punishment for the mother's failure to prevent the pregnancy.

That view -- the notion that a woman who voluntarily engages in sex is somehow irresponsible if she becomes pregnant unintentionally and should suffer the consequence -- is exactly the reasoning that was rejected in Roe v. Wade. As the Court noted, we live in a society that does not view sex as being solely or primarily related to child bearing and that any notion of punishment is unacceptable. They also found that the law could not reasonably force a woman to proceed with a pregnancy that threatened her life or health. The only grounds for prohibiting abortion altogether in the eyes of the Court were either the protection of life, if the fetus were actually deemed to be human, or the protection of the "potentiality" of life which the Court indicated might be a reasonable foundation for regulating abortion procedures. All in all, I believe the decision was very well reasoned and should certainly be read by both its supporters and its opponents before they make too many judgments about it.

I did. I still see a fundamental inconsistency. If the life of the unborn child is sacred, and to be reveared the same as yours or mine, then why would the unscrupulous actions of a rapist change that fundamental belief? That would be like catching a rapist, then randomly executing a completely uninvolved third person? Its not that easy.

Please don't reply. There is no logical answer...only differences of belief, all supported by various Bible quotes, and the fight will go on for all eternity.

I joined this net to talk dogs, and out of curiosity looked under POTUS.....

With all due respect to others, those I agree with and those I disagree with alike, I am going to respectfully leave this forum and stick to the Retriever Training rooms.

I hope with all my heart that these discussions do NOT find their way to the fields. Lets keep it about the dogs out there.